justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 33,612
- 26,332
- 2,905
Any president who doesn't exceed his or (soon )her authority is nothing but a wuss. The sure sign of a dynamic leader is one who pushes boundaries to the point where pushback is certain. If they haven't found and tested those boundaries, then they're not trying hard enough to create a dynamic effect on the government they're overseeing.
We don't hire somebody for that job to babysit the chair in the Oval Office. We hire them to dig in and scratch the itches until blood shows.
This type of dynamic activity will always create antipathy. Therefore, antipathy becomes a thermometer of quality in this respect. There will always be polar rejection of any viewpoint in the political world—it is the very nature of politics. In fact, antipathy and rejection are actually the point of politics.
The system we use is supposed to be able to harbor disagreement with an intellectual version of antipathy and a civil version of rejection. American politics, however, has devolved into a circus where all venues—both civil and uncivil, intellectual and unintellectual—have become part of the process.
This brings us to the post topic: polling. The entire science of polling is built on tried-and-true elements of statistical science. Both polling and statistics are subject to major Achilles' heels of information and data collection. There is no statistical science and no polling without that collection.
This is where the human element becomes the poison in the well. As discussed earlier, American politics has devolved into activism and away from the original template of cerebral interaction. That activism often shows itself in the data collection of polls that are taken repeatedly, even though people see through them, to prove certain points. There is never a time when all polls agree, and there are always diametrically opposed numbers in polls taken by diametrically opposed political groups. For this reason, they're hardly worth paying attention to. As long as data is collected by those being paid for the information, there will always be results that are expected rather than extracted.
I've come to the conclusion that it's more about psychology than numbers. People always need an emotional cushion against realities they find unpleasant. Polling often provides such a cushion—especially when it agrees with their confirmation biases. We have seen time and again in recent years how polling data is made to serve the customer who ordered the polls rather than inform the general public. That isn't information; it's more or less deception.
So good luck with the polls... If your parents never bought you a teddy bear when you were a kid, there's good news for you.
We have polls.
We don't hire somebody for that job to babysit the chair in the Oval Office. We hire them to dig in and scratch the itches until blood shows.
This type of dynamic activity will always create antipathy. Therefore, antipathy becomes a thermometer of quality in this respect. There will always be polar rejection of any viewpoint in the political world—it is the very nature of politics. In fact, antipathy and rejection are actually the point of politics.
The system we use is supposed to be able to harbor disagreement with an intellectual version of antipathy and a civil version of rejection. American politics, however, has devolved into a circus where all venues—both civil and uncivil, intellectual and unintellectual—have become part of the process.
This brings us to the post topic: polling. The entire science of polling is built on tried-and-true elements of statistical science. Both polling and statistics are subject to major Achilles' heels of information and data collection. There is no statistical science and no polling without that collection.
This is where the human element becomes the poison in the well. As discussed earlier, American politics has devolved into activism and away from the original template of cerebral interaction. That activism often shows itself in the data collection of polls that are taken repeatedly, even though people see through them, to prove certain points. There is never a time when all polls agree, and there are always diametrically opposed numbers in polls taken by diametrically opposed political groups. For this reason, they're hardly worth paying attention to. As long as data is collected by those being paid for the information, there will always be results that are expected rather than extracted.
I've come to the conclusion that it's more about psychology than numbers. People always need an emotional cushion against realities they find unpleasant. Polling often provides such a cushion—especially when it agrees with their confirmation biases. We have seen time and again in recent years how polling data is made to serve the customer who ordered the polls rather than inform the general public. That isn't information; it's more or less deception.
So good luck with the polls... If your parents never bought you a teddy bear when you were a kid, there's good news for you.
We have polls.
